You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Welcome to BZPower!

Hi there, while we hope you enjoy browsing through the site, there's a lot more you can do if you register. The process is easy and you can use your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account to make it even faster. Some perks of joining include:

Create your own topics, participate in existing discussions, and vote in polls

Show off your creations, stories, art, music, and movies and play member and staff-run games

Enter contests to win free LEGO sets and other prizes, and vote to decide the winners

Participate in raffles, including exclusive raffles for new members, and win free LEGO sets

Send private messages to other members

Organize with other members to attend or send your MOCs to LEGO fan events all over the world

While I agree that war is not something to take lightly, my opinion still stands that Smash Bros. is not war. Realism also does not have to be applied to Smash Bros., which I know is a big turn-off for a lot of RPers.

I realize that, my post was more of a general statement that could be applied to certain types of RPG's.

I'm not a light-hearted RPer myself, I'll approve a Smash Bros RPG if it meets the standards set forth by the guidelines, but I won't play it.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 12:11 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

[color=rgb(102,16,6);font-family:'Bookman Old Style';]The problem with the defined end is that it "ends" the RPG, but how long do RPGs last on BZP now anyways? A month? Two? Why do we [/color]care[color=rgb(102,16,6);font-family:'Bookman Old Style';] if it's self-sustaining when almost none of them that are actually work out. If we know these RPGs don't last long, why don't we actually just embrace that idea and have fun with it?[/color]

[font="'courier new', courier, monospace;"]We care because this isn't suppose to be how RPGs work. Turn back the clock a year or two and you see RPGs that last at least half a year, if not more. The community is beginning to dry up however, so now it's harder and harder to find an RPG that won't fail quickly. Epilogue for instance seems to of gotten the formula just right for continued success.[/font]

The lack of long-lasting RPGs does not mean something akin to a paradigm shift, it just means there's a problem that needs to be fixed, either manually or just letting time pass and resolve itself.

0

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89

"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

[color=rgb(102,16,6);font-family:'Bookman Old Style';]The problem with the defined end is that it "ends" the RPG, but how long do RPGs last on BZP now anyways? A month? Two? Why do we [/color]care[color=rgb(102,16,6);font-family:'Bookman Old Style';] if it's self-sustaining when almost none of them that are actually work out. If we know these RPGs don't last long, why don't we actually just embrace that idea and have fun with it?[/color]

The lack of long-lasting RPGs does not mean something akin to a paradigm shift, it just means there's a problem that needs to be fixed, either manually or just letting time pass and resolve itself.

Humva is correct. You don't have fun with problems, you don't just sigh and accept them. You try to fix them. Things have been getting slightly better, there has been a slight increase in overall activity and Humva, I know, has a heck of an RPG planned. Nine or ten members are already chomping at the bit to get started and, when we play minecraft, I make a point of harassing him about it. I have the highest of hopes for the future.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 12:18 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

My problem is more in line with realism. I make sure to read actual accounts of war, tactics, and how the soldiers feel about it when I'm involved in such an RPG. Simply because I bother to do the research and put real, concrete effort into my tactics and play soldiers, as soldiers, doesn't mean I'm "dark". War isn't nice, war isn't fair. My approach to it an RPG's reflects this.

What matters is the story. What matters is the characters and how they develop. What matters is the impact they have on the setting around them. What matters is how they interact. What matters is the narrative. More importantly, having fun. If that way of playing lets you have more fun, all the better. You just shouldn't assume that the RPG is designed on the same principles of realism.

Humva is somewhat correct. Aside from that, I'll note there is a reason RPG's involving certain political movements and the wars they spawned are banned. Evidently, many people don't agree with you Lev. Just a note. A rather large and important one.

You're right. That rule is there, because there are some people who get offended easily. I don't deny that if I determined things, people who get offended at the drop of the hat would be grouped up into a large building with a staff who treated them like a toddler in a very demeaning manner 24/7.

[font="'Courier New';color:#2503AD;"][font="'courier new', courier, monospace;"]We care because this isn't suppose to be how RPGs work. Turn back the clock a year or two and you see RPGs that last at least half a year, if not more. The community is beginning to dry up however, so now it's harder and harder to find an RPG that won't fail quickly. Epilogue for instance seems to of gotten the formula just right for continued success.[/font][/font]

[font="'Courier New';color:#2503AD;"] [/font]

[font="'Courier New';color:#2503AD;"]The lack of long-lasting RPGs does not mean something akin to a paradigm shift, it just means there's a problem that needs to be fixed, either manually or just letting time pass and resolve itself.[/font]

Humva is correct. You don't have fun with problems, you don't just sigh and accept them. You try to fix them. Things have been getting slightly better, there has been a slight increase in overall activity and Humva, I know, has a heck of an RPG planned. Nine or ten members are already chomping at the bit to get started and, when we play minecraft, I make a point of harassing him about it. I have the highest of hopes for the future.

"You don't have fun with problems." The whole point is to have fun! It's a game! The problem is that RPGs are dying off, so you solve the problem by creating RPGs that can survive with fewer players and don't need as much time, having a contained narrative. That's one solution, and not the only one. But denying that it's a possibility is folly.

And don't try to tell me that isn't how an RPG works, because the point of an RPG is to be roleplaying within a story. The story can have an ending, whether it's good or bad. Just because they don't tend to end on here doesn't mean they can't. In fact, an RPG is supposed to have a goal of some sort, and a goal can be accomplished.

I wish you the best of luck with this RPG, but don't go the way of Shada.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor

0

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[font="'courier new', courier, monospace;"]I'm not that particularly opposed to the idea of smaller scale RPGs, though I do have my doubts about how they'd survive even in this climate. If someone could pull off a small scale a b c story then I'm not here to deny them that, though how many players were on-board beforehand would be a factor into the approval of it. For a scale like that you need people committed at the start, because joining in after the fact is always going be more difficult.[/font]

0

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89

"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

What matters is the story. What matters is the characters and how they develop. What matters is the impact they have on the setting around them. What matters is how they interact. What matters is the narrative. More importantly, having fun. If that way of playing lets you have more fun, all the better. You just shouldn't assume that the RPG is designed on the same principles of realism.

To you. You are not me and it is arrogant to assume that yours is the sole valid viewpoint and that it is how all RPG's should be run. Everything you say is subjective and subject to disagreement. I shan't change my opinions because of what you think matters.

I do research, I care about being accurate. Handwaving things along for the story, to me, reeks of a poor approach to the matter.

"You don't have fun with problems." The whole point is to have fun! It's a game! The problem is that RPGs are dying off, so you solve the problem by creating RPGs that can survive with fewer players and don't need as much time, having a contained narrative. That's one solution, and not the only one. But denying that it's a possibility is folly.

And don't try to tell me that isn't how an RPG works, because the point of an RPG is to be roleplaying within a story. The story can have an ending, whether it's good or bad. Just because they don't tend to end on here doesn't mean they can't. In fact, an RPG is supposed to have a goal of some sort, and a goal can be accomplished.

I wish you the best of luck with this RPG, but don't go the way of Shada.

To you perhaps. RPG's mean something quite different to me. I care about logic and competence and things making sense. I don't have fun if things don't make sense, if there isn't some sort of order. When you start caring more about the story then about logic, then you get the Mass Effect 3 endings. My viewpoint is not yours and yours is not the sole valid viewpoint. As you seem to think it is.

If you want a story, read a book or play a video games. The great thing about TBRPG's is they aren't limited that way.

You're right. That rule is there, because there are some people who get offended easily. I don't deny that if I determined things, people who get offended at the drop of the hat would be grouped up into a large building with a staff who treated them like a toddler in a very demeaning manner 24/7.

How nice for you.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 01:14 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

What matters is the story. What matters is the characters and how they develop. What matters is the impact they have on the setting around them. What matters is how they interact. What matters is the narrative. More importantly, having fun. If that way of playing lets you have more fun, all the better. You just shouldn't assume that the RPG is designed on the same principles of realism.

To you. You are not me and it is arrogant to assume I share your viewpoint on this. Everything you say is subjective and subject to disagreement. I shan't change my opinions because of what you think matters.

I do research, I care about being accurate. Handwaving things along for the story, to me, reeks of a poor approach to the matter.

I hate to say it but I've had this conversation before, countless times in Dino Attack RPG, in which there were two parties, people who tried to encourage the rest of us to embrace "MST3K Mantra" (in short: basically justifying anything that doesn't make sense by saying "It's fiction, don't worry about it"), and people like me who believed in realism.

Now I suppose it depends in part on what exactly we mean by "realism". Since the term can be applied two ways, in regards to:

1) Reality (i.e. could someone really do this?)

2) The logic and rules within the story (i.e. Does this make sense within the context of everything I've established?)

Now, personally I can't deny that a certain amount of suspension of disbelief may be necessary. It's really a question of the context and how far you're willing to go. For instance, there's a difference between a film making a mistake in one scene (i.e. Dave Bowman holding his breath in 2001: A Space Odyssey) and a ridiculously far-fetched premise that makes no sense by any logic whatsoever.

I'll also add that, personally I find it easier to suspend my disbelief in some contexts than others. I often find it easier to accept things that don't make sense in a comedic environment more than a serious one (if only because the nonsensical elements are meant to be funny). It could also depend on setting as well. For instance, I've often made fun of Star Wars for its constant scientific inaccuracies in how it depicts space travel, but I don't normally complain about anything crazy in The Lord of The Rings. Then again I'm the sort of person who usually prefers hard science fiction over softer works.

That said, I think there should be a degree of realism in any RPG in order to be believable. It's really a question of just how much, which in turn depends on the context.

To you. You are not me and it is arrogant to assume that yours is the sole valid viewpoint and that it is how all RPG's should be run. Everything you say is subjective and subject to disagreement. I shan't change my opinions because of what you think matters.

It's not my viewpoint on how RPGs should be run but my viewpoint on all stories. A story where everything must be realistic cannot be truly fictional, and fiction need not be truly realistic. The whole point is suspending your disbelief, which a story is meant to be able to do on its own; in the case of an RPG, where you are the writer, you need to be more open to doing it yourself.

While saying "I'm right and only I am right" would be arrogant, the problem is that your viewpoint conflicts more with the nature of an RPG than mine. When an RPG is populated by characters and tells a story, forcing realism upon it can change the tone or theme presented. My viewpoint says "make it as realistic or fantastical as you want, as long as it serves the purpose of the RPG." By forcing realism onto the story, you are restricting the options available.

To you perhaps. RPG's mean something quite different to me. I care about logic and competence and things making sense. I don't have fun if things don't make sense, if there isn't some sort of order. When you start caring more about the story then about logic, then you get the Mass Effect 3 endings. My viewpoint is not yours and yours is not the sole valid viewpoint. As you seem to think it is.

I apologize, but I wasn't so much addressing you on that point. To add on to what I said above, however - there's a converse. Look at Man of Steel, the new Superman movie. They tried to make it more gritty and realistic. In doing so, they sacrificed any proper characterization and made a much more drab movie with some action schlock and a destroyed city attached to it.

And I hardly call the Mass Effect 3 endings the proper ending to a story, either. If the game had a "realistic" ending, though, it would probably be the technologically advanced death robots destroying the galaxy, though. Which would also undermine three games worth of effort, and therefore be an even worse ending.

I hate to say it but I've had this conversation before, countless times in Dino Attack RPG, in which there were two parties, people who tried to encourage the rest of us to embrace "MST3K Mantra" (in short: basically justifying anything that doesn't make sense by saying "It's fiction, don't worry about it"), and people like me who believed in realism.

Now I suppose it depends in part on what exactly we mean by "realism". Since the term can be applied two ways, in regards to:

1) Reality (i.e. could someone really do this?)

2) The logic and rules within the story (i.e. Does this make sense within the context of everything I've established?)

Now, personally I can't deny that a certain amount of suspension of disbelief may be necessary. It's really a question of the context and how far you're willing to go. For instance, there's a difference between a film making a mistake in one scene (i.e. Dave Bowman holding his breath in 2001: A Space Odyssey) and a ridiculously far-fetched premise that makes no sense by any logic whatsoever.

I'll also add that, personally I find it easier to suspend my disbelief in some contexts than others. I often find it easier to accept things that don't make sense in a comedic environment more than a serious one (if only because the nonsensical elements are meant to be funny). It could also depend on setting as well. For instance, I've often made fun of Star Wars for its constant scientific inaccuracies in how it depicts space travel, but I don't normally complain about anything crazy in The Lord of The Rings. Then again I'm the sort of person who usually prefers hard science fiction over softer works.

That said, I think there should be a degree of realism in any RPG in order to be believable. It's really a question of just how much, which in turn depends on the context.

MST3K Mantra =/= Everything must be unrealistic. You have to apply a certain amount of common sense to a setting, but in a fictional work, it's already unrealistic. Forcing realism over the plot means more care to logic than story.

Your definition of "realism" is the most realistic (terrible pun, I know). If a setting already has it's own rules, you can't violate them. But you can't just apply the logic of the real world to everything and then call foul when the fictional world behaves as though it was a work of fiction. When it comes right down to it, you need to be willing to suspend your disbelief a little.

This applies to character interaction as well. Just because your character would win a fight and kill the enemy by doing something doesn't mean you should do it, especially if it means killing off another character. Unless, of course, you handled it beforehand.

-Toa Levacius ZEhvor

0

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It's not my viewpoint on how RPGs should be run but my viewpoint on all stories. A story where everything must be realistic cannot be truly fictional, and fiction need not be truly realistic. The whole point is suspending your disbelief, which a story is meant to be able to do on its own; in the case of an RPG, where you are the writer, you need to be more open to doing it yourself.

While saying "I'm right and only I am right" would be arrogant, the problem is that your viewpoint conflicts more with the nature of an RPG than mine. When an RPG is populated by characters and tells a story, forcing realism upon it can change the tone or theme presented. My viewpoint says "make it as realistic or fantastical as you want, as long as it serves the purpose of the RPG." By forcing realism onto the story, you are restricting the options available.

Hardly. I left more then one RPG when it became evident I didn't fit with it. I stated my reasons for doing so in a calm and civil manner. You can suspend your disbelief all you like, but I shouldn't have to actively do it. If someone put real effort into a setting, it would happen naturally. That doesn't happen often around here. Just because you are doing something for fun doesn't mean you don't have to put effort and research into it. Some here, however, seem to think rule of fun and rule of cool justifies everything.

It does not, in my opinion.

You act as if there is a physical law stating what RPG's have to be. There is not. Some RPG's are more dedicated to realism and research and making sense with others. These are the kind I play and enjoy. I do not play the others. Your viewpoint, despite your statements, seem to resent realism intruding on fantasy. I say, simply because something is fantasy, it isn't carte blanche to go sailing off into the sky on the back of a rainbow dragon. That sort of thing shatters my disbelief into a million pieces and ruins the fun. Utterly.

Again, insofar as I'm concerned, when playing in an RPG, if you want a story, go read a book. I'm not going to hold back from dropping a tac-nuke on your character and their friends just because it doesn't fit with your story plan. If someone fights against a force commanded by one of my characters in an RPG, the lives of their characters are in danger if it is a serious combat situation. I don't ask that people lose to me, but if they win, they will earn their victory.

I apologize, but I wasn't so much addressing you on that point. To add on to what I said above, however - there's a converse. Look at Man of Steel, the new Superman movie. They tried to make it more gritty and realistic. In doing so, they sacrificed any proper characterization and made a much more drab movie with some action schlock and a destroyed city attached to it.

And I hardly call the Mass Effect 3 endings the proper ending to a story, either. If the game had a "realistic" ending, though, it would probably be the technologically advanced death robots destroying the galaxy, though. Which would also undermine three games worth of effort, and therefore be an even worse ending.

Having not seen the movie, I can't comment on it. Though I note it did well enough in the box office if my sources are correct. Evidently the public disagrees with you.

Huh. "Highest grossing superman film ever".

The more you know.

Or, perhaps, they could have pulled something clever rather then the red-green-blue "art" we got. There is a web-comic that explores this concept and, I think, it does quite well.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 03:05 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Well, even with some of the people who repeatedly tried to tell me "MST3K Mantra" whenever I complained about something not making sense, and there were several conflicts between realism and rule of drama. One incident a guy complained because he wanted to get a character who had been mortally wounded out of the hospital and into the middle of a mutant dinosaur-infested city (it makes sense in context) and one of my characters (a doctor, I might add, you know, the sort of person who's job it is to keep people alive) wouldn't let her. Then there was apparently a later argument where he insisted on having a character walk from one place to another when she could have very easily taken a helicopter (and yes, that would have been possible to do) which would have been far more practical and faster because he thought her walking was more dramatic.

The thing is, if you ask me, "MST3K Mantra" is an excuse to cover up lazy writing. As I've said before some suspension of disbelief may be necessary once in a while but if your work is so unbelievable that the only way you can get people to accept it is to point out that it's fiction than something is seriously wrong with your work.

You can have fun with Fantasy and create a crazy world full of dragons and magic and whatnot, but there should still be some sort of logic to make it believable, even if that doesn't draw directly from science. For instance, there should be some rules in how the magic is used, and breaking these rules can cause problems or seem like too much of a Deus Ex Machina. Even then there could be small things, like if you have a non-magic using character who successfully leaps a 12-mile wide chasm and simply tell people "it's fiction, get over it", I would think the story would seem less believable even with the other fantastical elements.

Alright, I'm going to pich in here.These (extremely well presented) arguements are going to lead NOWHERE. You are arguing about an OPINION. No matter how much you argue, you will NEVER convince the other of your point of view. I have been in this position before, and all it leaves is bad feelings. Since this is an OPINION you are arguing about, this won't be resolved until you agree to disagree.-sonyaxe

Well, even with some of the people who repeatedly tried to tell me "MST3K Mantra" whenever I complained about something not making sense, and there were several conflicts between realism and rule of drama.

Been there. Been there so many times. Got the T-shirt.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

[font="'courier new', courier, monospace;"]Actually opinions are the basis of arguments. You can't really argue about facts. If I am standing in the living room, it is impossible to argue that I am standing in the kitchen. If the debate is whether or not I'm thinking about moving to the kitchen, without knowledge of my inner thoughts, then that is an opinion and can be debated with what evidence is available, for instance one might say I'm going to go to the kitchen because I'm complaining I'm hungry and another might say I'm not because I'm too busy playing Skyrim.[/font]

[font="'courier new', courier, monospace;"]There is plenty of use arguing about opinions because that's the whole point of arguing.[/font]

0

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89

"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

While it may be somewhat unlikely that one side of this debate is going to come away from it with some kind of profound epiphany about realism in fiction, that's not quite the same thing as it being entirely useless to debate opinions. Freaking out and trying to play referee in any opinion-based discussion, because things might turn nasty simply due to the fact that the things being argued over are opinions, is a bit silly.

Besides, plenty of people make their livings arguing about opinions. If you take any class on philosophy, a good chunk of the time will be spent teaching you how to argue opinions effectively.

So, until the monkey-missiles start flying, sit back and let the discussion roll.

0

Gentlemen, fooling you once with this trick was an honor. Twice was a privilege. It's been a pleasure.

Hardly. I left more then one RPG when it became evident I didn't fit with it. I stated my reasons for doing so in a calm and civil manner. You can suspend your disbelief all you like, but I shouldn't have to actively do it. If someone put real effort into a setting, it would happen naturally. That doesn't happen often around here. Just because you are doing something for fun doesn't mean you don't have to put effort and research into it. Some here, however, seem to think rule of fun and rule of cool justifies everything.

It does not, in my opinion.

You act as if there is a physical law stating what RPG's have to be. There is not. Some RPG's are more dedicated to realism and research and making sense with others. These are the kind I play and enjoy. I do not play the others. Your viewpoint, despite your statements, seem to resent realism intruding on fantasy. I say, simply because something is fantasy, it isn't carte blanche to be go sailing off into the sky on the back of rainbow dragon. That sort of thing shatters my disbelief into a million pieces and ruins the fun. Utterly.

Again, insofar as I'm concerned, when playing in an RPG, if you want a story, go read a book. I'm not going to hold back from dropping a tac-nuke on your character and their friends just because it doesn't fit with your story place. If someone fights against a force commanded by one of my characters in an RPG, the lives of their characters are in danger if it is a serious combat situation. I don't ask that people lose to me, but if they win, they will earn their victory.

Okay, I put a lot of thought into how to best phrase this sentence - let's say you were in the tac-nuke scenario, and could easily destroy a bunch of enemy PCs. You know there are other uses of the weapon later on, but you could clean up a big mess by using it in this manner. By saving the weapon and potentially using it against NPCs later, you would let them continue playing and still have a big advantage. I'm going to assume you're playing a character whose smart and pragmatic above all else, since it fits the vein of a lot of your characters. Either way, you win; the difference is, you potentially ruin the fun by killing off the favored characters of a few other players in one scenario in exchange for a small benefit. Which do you choose?

Now, I don't resent realism, I resent it's overuse. I could not enjoy an RPG where keeping things realistic was the main goal of the scenario. Let me put it to you this way - a good story allows the event that has a one in twenty chance of happening to happen. It doesn't do it frequently, but when it does, it's what you're hoping to happen. You want Luke Skywalker to destroy the Death Star, even though it's almost impossible. In the RPG, allow that one in twenty to happen. Not all of the time, of course, but when there are a thousand different possible events, let one happen. Don't force the "most likely" event. If everything happened as it was "most likely" to the plot would determine itself. That's the realism I hate, and it's the one I'm most scared of seeing take place.

Finally, when you're playing an RPG, you're writing a story. When you're reading a book, you're looking at one already made. But as long as the RPG is being written, a story is being written, and you're in charge of one of the characters within it.

Something I do agree with you on - rule of cool doesn't have a place in the RPG world. Frankly, it should never exit the visual media. Rule of cool assumes too much.

Side Note - Given enough foreshadowing and the establishment of both rainbows and dragons that can be ridden in the setting, riding away on a rainbow dragon is a perfectly acceptable response to a situation.

Having not seen the movie, I can't comment on it. Though I note it did well enough in the box office if my sources are correct. Evidently the public disagrees with you.

Huh. "Highest grossing superman film ever".

The more you know.

Or, perhaps, they could have pulled something clever rather then the red-green-blue "art" we got. There is a web-comic that explores this concept and, I think, it does quite well.

It was a film with action and good marketing, of course it did well at the box office. Let me remind you that Transformers 2 was also a commercial success.

The critical response is far more telling. People who actually study the art of film and appreciate it for more than just a cheap thrill pretty much agree universally the the film sucked. Compare this to the Avengers, which took a director who cares about character and dialogue and made an incredibly entertaining if frequently unrealistic movie. The Avengers was viewed much more positively by critics, and yet still did well in the box office. The moral here is that Man of Steel didn't do well at the box office by being good, it did well by being action schlock.

Since you seem a bit confused, I never said Mass Effect 3 had a good ending. The ending was terrible. The truly "realistic" ending with the Reapers succeeding just as easily as they had in the past would also have sucked is what I'm saying. Any other ending would require some suspension of disbelief... yet would still have been a better ending nonetheless, if not a good one. We can agree on that, no?

Well, even with some of the people who repeatedly tried to tell me "MST3K Mantra" whenever I complained about something not making sense, and there were several conflicts between realism and rule of drama. One incident a guy complained because he wanted to get a character who had been mortally wounded out of the hospital and into the middle of a mutant dinosaur-infested city (it makes sense in context) and one of my characters (a doctor, I might add, you know, the sort of person who's job it is to keep people alive) wouldn't let her. Then there was apparently a later argument where he insisted on having a character walk from one place to another when she could have very easily taken a helicopter (and yes, that would have been possible to do) which would have been far more practical and faster because he thought her walking was more dramatic.

The thing is, if you ask me, "MST3K Mantra" is an excuse to cover up lazy writing. As I've said before some suspension of disbelief may be necessary once in a while but if your work is so unbelievable that the only way you can get people to accept it is to point out that it's fiction than something is seriously wrong with your work.

You can have fun with Fantasy and create a crazy world full of dragons and magic and whatnot, but there should still be some sort of logic to make it believable, even if that doesn't draw directly from science. For instance, there should be some rules in how the magic is used, and breaking these rules can cause problems or seem like too much of a Deus Ex Machina. Even then there could be small things, like if you have a non-magic using character who successfully leaps a 12-mile wide chasm and simply tell people "it's fiction, get over it", I would think the story would seem less believable even with the other fantastical elements.

The Mantra isn't intended to cover lazy writing. It's supposed to be for saying "yeah, there's a few plot holes, but did they stop you from enjoying what happened?" If something is actually making it impossible to enjoy, like some crummy deus ex machina, then you can't apply the Mantra. If you enjoyed what happened, then there's no need to worry.

To a lesser extent, it's for the point of saying, "Is it really worth getting mad about?" Legolas rides a shield down a stairway; is it stupid? Yes. Did it stop you from enjoying the film? If no, then shut up. If yes, then get your priorities checked.

Second point - also agreed. When a setting has its laws established, they should be followed. If a setting says magic can't defy gravity, then you can't have a magic flying carpet. I personally try to do my best to shore up the rules of magic and what not in any setting I write before beginning; check the write-up for the land I made in Multiversal Collision for the abridged version of the magic system in that world if you need proof.

Alright, I'm going to pich in here.These (extremely well presented) arguements are going to lead NOWHERE. You are arguing about an OPINION. No matter how much you argue, you will NEVER convince the other of your point of view. I have been in this position before, and all it leaves is bad feelings. Since this is an OPINION you are arguing about, this won't be resolved until you agree to disagree.-sonyaxe

Basilisk and I agreed to disagree quite some time ago. When we're in agreement should worry you more.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor

0

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I say, simply because something is fantasy, it isn't carte blanche to go sailing off into the sky on the back of a rainbow dragon

But what if said rainbow dragon has been previously established in the lore of the story? Just summoning one out of nowhere is ridiculous, sure, but if you passed a nest of the things on your journey and the character who sailed off mentioned they had some special bond, or maybe the chief dragon owed him a solid...

Its like the Song of Ice and Fire. Most of the time its gritty and uber-realistic, what with all the political intrigue, racial prejudices, class struggles and noble idealists getting cut down for being morons who think the world will work out like a fairy tale and whatnot, but then it has something like dragons or pyromancers and the warlocks of Qarth. But they're part of the established mythos and rules so the series doesn't turn into a Narnia-esque fantasy kitchen sink

Okay, I put a lot of thought into how to best phrase this sentence - let's say you were in the tac-nuke scenario, and could easily destroy a bunch of enemy PCs. You know there are other uses of the weapon later on, but you could clean up a big mess by using it in this manner. By saving the weapon and potentially using it against NPCs later, you would let them continue playing and still have a big advantage. I'm going to assume you're playing a character whose smart and pragmatic above all else, since it fits the vein of a lot of your characters. Either way, you win; the difference is, you potentially ruin the fun by killing off the favored characters of a few other players in one scenario in exchange for a small benefit. Which do you choose?

There will be a mushroom cloud. Let me put it that way. They made the mistake of messing with a character of mine who had the resources to deal with them and they made themselves a big enough threat to him that he decided overkill was the only kill to apply in the situation. I have no sympathy. They want to live? Tell their stories? Then don't screw with someone who has the firepower to take them down.

Now, I don't resent realism, I resent it's overuse. I could not enjoy an RPG where keeping things realistic was the main goal of the scenario. Let me put it to you this way - a good story allows the event that has a one in twenty chance of happening to happen. It doesn't do it frequently, but when it does, it's what you're hoping to happen. You want Luke Skywalker to destroy the Death Star, even though it's almost impossible. In the RPG, allow that one in twenty to happen. Not all of the time, of course, but when there are a thousand different possible events, let one happen. Don't force the "most likely" event. If everything happened as it was "most likely" to the plot would determine itself. That's the realism I hate, and it's the one I'm most scared of seeing take place.

Don't lecture me about story structure, I've already told you I don't think it has any place in the RPG's I play. I resent the overuse of fantasy myself, but I don't expect every RPG to conform to that standard, I don't play the RPG's that don't conform to it. Simple-as. I'll approve it, but I won't play it. It's boring and frusterating to me.

Ah. So realism means unlikely things can't happen. Clearly, the fact that the last true bayonet charge in military history failed is evi-.

United States Army officer Lewis L. Millett led soldiers of the US Army's 27th Infantry Regiment in taking out a machine gun position with bayonets, and received the Medal of Honor for the action. This was the last bayonet charge by the US Army.

Fancy that. I don't demand the guy with the gun always beat the fellow with the knife, but the fellow with knife is going to need to be very smart and actually earn his victory. It shouldn't happen because you hope it'll happen. It should happen because the fellow with the knife was clever and quick. Otherwise it's just pointless. Victory is worth nothing if there was never any chance of defeat. But, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the man with the gun will win. Because he has a gun. If you want your character to be the exception. Work for it. Don't expect the man with the gun to hold back.

Finally, when you're playing an RPG, you're writing a story. When you're reading a book, you're looking at one already made. But as long as the RPG is being written, a story is being written, and you're in charge of one of the characters within it.

Hardly. RPGs are simulated worlds in my view. I don't care what's dramatic, I don't care what people hope happens. My characters, if it suits their personality, will fight to win. Just like people do in real life. If you manage to beat them, congrats. If you don't, then I'm sorry you weren't clever or quick enough, but I'm not holding back on your account.

was a film with action and good marketing, of course it did well at the box office. Let me remind you that Transformers 2 was also a commercial success.

The critical response is far more telling. People who actually study the art of film and appreciate it for more than just a cheap thrill pretty much agree universally the the film sucked. Compare this to the Avengers, which took a director who cares about character and dialogue and made an incredibly entertaining if frequently unrealistic movie. The Avengers was viewed much more positively by critics, and yet still did well in the box office. The moral here is that Man of Steel didn't do well at the box office by being good, it did well by being action schlock.

Since you seem a bit confused, I never said Mass Effect 3 had a good ending. The ending was terrible. The truly "realistic" ending with the Reapers succeeding just as easily as they had in the past would also have sucked is what I'm saying. Any other ending would require some suspension of disbelief... yet would still have been a better ending nonetheless, if not a good one. We can agree on that, no?

The critics loved ME 3. Besides, all I noted was how well it did. I made no claims of it being good. Where did you get that from?

You seem to be the confused one I'm afraid. I was saying, instead of using the catalyst as they did, the writers could have had the races of the galaxy pull off something clever to take out the Reapers rather then what we got.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 03:57 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Lev, I think you're misunderstanding what Basilisk is saying. He's not saying that the outcome with the highest numerical probability is what should happen, all the time, no questions asked. On paper, a corvette mauling a battleship and getting away with it is not the most probable outcome, but it's possible, given certain actions on the part of the two parties. RPing isn't about everyone coming together to make sure that your characters do what you want them to do. It's about making interesting characters and throwing them in a world, and then seeing what happens. If the path for your character is predetermined, write a story. If your plan is flexible enough to adapt to monkey-wrenches thrown into it by the world, by the GM, and by your fellow players, then play an RPG and enjoy it. Sometimes this means that your character will suffer realistic consequences for their actions. If you're fighting someone and put your hand over their mouth, they might bite you. If you declare war on someone and they have nuclear missiles, they might nuke you. If you rush at twenty Stormtroopers wielding nothing but a box-cutter and a manic grin... ah, who am I kidding, Stormtroopers can't aim to save their lives.

0

Gentlemen, fooling you once with this trick was an honor. Twice was a privilege. It's been a pleasure.

I'm starting to get a bit worried that we may be getting too caught up in this discussion, as fascinating as it may be. I remember getting into disputes once on an RPG planning thread, and the result was a flame war that lasted several months if not longer. Maybe I'm overreacting but I don't want that to happen again.

Lev, I think you're misunderstanding what Basilisk is saying. He's not saying that the outcome with the highest numerical probability is what should happen, all the time, no questions asked. On paper, a corvette mauling a battleship and getting away with it is not the most probable outcome, but it's possible, given certain actions on the part of the two parties.

Rover, as is normal, has the right of it.

Also, good times. Good times.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

[font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]No offense to anyone here, you can go on debating, but from what I've seen about the RPG itself and more related to that topic is this:[/font]

[font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]There's currently two options for style and set-up of the RPG: Have the tournament, perhaps with a few side-quests; or have an RPG that's actually set up to end, end spectacularly, and simply be finished when it finishes. [/font]

[font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"](And yes, Canis, this is a little like the Ninjago RPG set-up. Atton, you'll probably recognize this as well.)[/font]

[font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have the RPG set up like this: There's a main region or place, (The Smash Complex) where all/most of the characters would relax and casually brawl each other and such. Everyso often, perhaps when activity seems to be slowing down, a plot arc will start up and send a group or even all the characters flying off on a quest, which would be 'A-B-C-Finish'. Return to home, derp around and repeat. [/font]

[font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]The other main suggestion/comment was basically whether or not to have characters from outside of just Smash, or Nintendo, or even video games. I personally think that it'd be an interesting idea, and I've already got an in-game reason for such things to happen. [/font]

If we're using any character we want, there might need to be an explanation for how they can seemingly fight on even terms. Maybe the dimension alters everyone's power as to be equal? I mean, it would be no fun for everyone if I destroyed the planet with Goku.I would also like to see an expansion on the concept of the Subspace Army.

If we're using any character we want, there might need to be an explanation for how they can seemingly fight on even terms. Maybe the dimension alters everyone's power as to be equal? I mean, it would be no fun for everyone if I destroyed the planet with Goku.

What would happen if we accidentally brought in a character without any supernatural or superhuman powers?

If we're using any character we want, there might need to be an explanation for how they can seemingly fight on even terms. Maybe the dimension alters everyone's power as to be equal? I mean, it would be no fun for everyone if I destroyed the planet with Goku.

What would happen if we accidentally brought in a character without any supernatural or superhuman powers?

Well, from what I said, the dimension would equalize the power of ANY person/monster/etc., so they would have about the same resilience and strength as the combatants, as would their arsenal of weaponry.

If we're using any character we want, there might need to be an explanation for how they can seemingly fight on even terms. Maybe the dimension alters everyone's power as to be equal? I mean, it would be no fun for everyone if I destroyed the planet with Goku.

What would happen if we accidentally brought in a character without any supernatural or superhuman powers?

Well, from what I said, the dimension would equalize the power of ANY person/monster/etc., so they would have about the same resilience and strength as the combatants, as would their arsenal of weaponry.

So if I were to bring in a character like say... Snake Plissken, who happens to be a tough guy but has no superpowers or superstrength or anything, the dimension would somehow make him stand a chance against characters who have flame attacks and other such crazy powers?

[font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]Yep. I mean, just look at Solid Snake. Same thing, no real powers, but he works. Just give him his best weaponry and the dimension/special items would do the rest.[/font]

If we're using any character we want, there might need to be an explanation for how they can seemingly fight on even terms. Maybe the dimension alters everyone's power as to be equal? I mean, it would be no fun for everyone if I destroyed the planet with Goku.

What would happen if we accidentally brought in a character without any supernatural or superhuman powers?

Well, from what I said, the dimension would equalize the power of ANY person/monster/etc., so they would have about the same resilience and strength as the combatants, as would their arsenal of weaponry.

So if I were to bring in a character like say... Snake Plissken, who happens to be a tough guy but has no superpowers or superstrength or anything, the dimension would somehow make him stand a chance against characters who have flame attacks and other such crazy powers?

That arguably already happens in the series. Solid Snake doesn't have mystical abilities or superhuman strength, yet his explosive weaponry is capable of doing the job, and he is even on mostly even terms when talking about power against other combatants. Link can also be an example, while part of his arsenal is magical, his inherent traits are not, and he has not been stated to have superhuman strength.

Well, instead of doing that, you could alternatively just not allow Goku or anyone who has the power of a god and could just kill everyone with a punch/thought.

Another option could be this:

A FIGHT IS ANNOUNCED! GOKU VS. INDIANA JONES!

GOKU IS NOT ALLOWED ANY WEAPONS OR ITEMS! JONES MAY BRING IN UP TO TEN!

Or something like that. The OP character would have to fight with powers, skill, and physical prowess, whereas the other would have all that plus powerful items from different continuities.

Zakaro, I think that your suggestion is good, and would be made better with say, a tournament schedule/bracketing. Once a tournament is complete, you have some practice matches, and then missions, and then repeat.

And you really should draw from everything and not just videogames/Nintendo.

Well, instead of doing that, you could alternatively just not allow Goku or anyone who has the power of a god and could just kill everyone with a punch/thought. Another option could be this: A FIGHT IS ANNOUNCED! GOKU VS. INDIANA JONES!GOKU IS NOT ALLOWED ANY WEAPONS OR ITEMS! JONES MAY BRING IN UP TO TEN! Or something like that. The OP character would have to fight with powers, skill, and physical prowess, whereas the other would have all that plus powerful items from different continuities.

The problem is that doesn't cover their inherint strength and/or abilities. No amount of weaponry could let Indiana Jones survive a Kamehameha at point blank range. If their powers were equal in some way, then that would let them fight using all of their crazy abilities/weapons without having battles last two posts.Essentially, I am suggesting a way that does let normally OP characters not win with a single punch/thought.

Lev, I think you're misunderstanding what Basilisk is saying. He's not saying that the outcome with the highest numerical probability is what should happen, all the time, no questions asked. On paper, a corvette mauling a battleship and getting away with it is not the most probable outcome, but it's possible, given certain actions on the part of the two parties. RPing isn't about everyone coming together to make sure that your characters do what you want them to do. It's about making interesting characters and throwing them in a world, and then seeing what happens. If the path for your character is predetermined, write a story. If your plan is flexible enough to adapt to monkey-wrenches thrown into it by the world, by the GM, and by your fellow players, then play an RPG and enjoy it. Sometimes this means that your character will suffer realistic consequences for their actions. If you're fighting someone and put your hand over their mouth, they might bite you. If you declare war on someone and they have nuclear missiles, they might nuke you. If you rush at twenty Stormtroopers wielding nothing but a box-cutter and a manic grin... ah, who am I kidding, Stormtroopers can't aim to save their lives.

Yes, but as a player, the goal is still to ensure everyone has the most fun. Hence -

There will be a mushroom cloud. Let me put it that way. They made the mistake of messing with a character of mine who had the resources to deal with them and they made themselves a big enough threat to him that he decided overkill was the only kill to apply in the situation. I have no sympathy. They want to live? Tell their stories? Then don't screw with someone who has the firepower to take them down.

- the scenario here was easily adaptable to a situation. I could go on and repeat myself, but allow me to quote from a gaming article done by Rich Burlew, writer of the Order of Stick webcomic -

"However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not."

Don't lecture me about story structure, I've already told you I don't think it has any place in the RPG's I play. I resent the overuse of fantasy myself, but I don't expect every RPG to conform to that standard, I don't play the RPG's that don't conform to it. Simple-as. I'll approve it, but I won't play it. It's boring and frusterating to me.

Ah. So realism means unlikely things can't happen. Clearly, the fact that the last true bayonet charge in military history failed is evi-.

Fancy that. I don't demand the guy with the gun always beat the fellow with the knife, but the fellow with knife is going to need to be very smart and actually earn his victory. It shouldn't happen because you hope it'll happen. It should happen because the fellow with the knife was clever and quick. Otherwise it's just pointless. Victory is worth nothing if there was never any chance of defeat. But, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the man with the gun will win. Because he has a gun. If you want your character to be the exception. Work for it. Don't expect the man with the gun to hold back.

Nor should the man with the gun hold back against the man charging with the knife. You really shouldn't be attacking the man with the gun unless you're going full on Most Dangerous Game on him.

To stress again - the use of realism should never diminish the RPG's fun. If constant "realistic" behavior by a PC or the GM leads to problems with other characters, though, that's when the issue begins.

Hardly. RPGs are simulated worlds in my view. I don't care what's dramatic, I don't care what people hope happens. My characters, if it suits their personality, will fight to win. Just like people do in real life. If you manage to beat them, congrats. If you don't, then I'm sorry you weren't clever or quick enough, but I'm not holding back on your account.

Not all people fight to win. People have dozens of things that motivate them, and winning no matter what is just one motivation. Just because every character you write needs to win doesn't mean every other character or person does. Frankly, creating a character whose only goal is a detriment to the RPG because it makes one characters goals more important than those of another.

We once discussed how you disliked characters who were written evil with their only goal being to cause trouble for others. The "play to win" style of roleplaying is the exact same; to accomplish your goals, others are almost guaranteed to suffer. Other motivations are far more acceptable. Perhaps the character wants to redeem themselves for some action in the past, and the quest is for atonement?

Not all characters are clever and quick, and not all are playing just to win. You shouldn't expect that they are, or take advantage of that fact.

Here's another thing I need you to clarify - your phrasing, and past displays, make the "beat them/not beat them" as clears "kill or be killed," which is again not a fun scenario. It means either total win or total loss. This is not a realistic point of view; things are never that cut and dry. Having a character willing to cut losses and allow enemies minor victories if it means having a favor or a future advantage in your hand makes a far more interesting character.

The critics loved ME 3. Besides, all I noted was how well it did. I made no claims of it being good. Where did you get that from?

You seem to be the confused one. I was saying, instead of using the catalyst as they did, the writers could have had the races of the galaxy pull off something clever to take out the Reapers rather then what we got.

Hmm. Most of the critics and reviewers I've looked over have had less than stellar things to say about it. Just a few people on the internet and one or two IRL friends. But we're getting kind of off topic here, I think. Let's just leave it at "Mass Effect 3 had a poorly written ending" and leave it at that, praying (or just hoping, if you're not the praying sort) that Dragon Age: Inquisition doesn't turn out the same way.

I'm starting to get a bit worried that we may be getting too caught up in this discussion, as fascinating as it may be. I remember getting into disputes once on an RPG planning thread, and the result was a flame war that lasted several months if not longer. Maybe I'm overreacting but I don't want that to happen again.

I'll ease your worry - if the argument picks up heavily or isn't done in like a day or two, I'll stand down completely no matter how far into it anything is. The exception is if someone gets the nerve to say 2012 was a great movie, because Roland Emmerich should be hung for that atrocity against cinema, science, characterization, logical sense or understanding of politics, and plot.

If you want an example of a movie so unrealistic I can't justify the first ten minutes of it, you have your example.

[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]No offense to anyone here, you can go on debating, but from what I've seen about the RPG itself and more related to that topic is this:[/font][/font]

[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]There's currently two options for style and set-up of the RPG: Have the tournament, perhaps with a few side-quests; or have an RPG that's actually set up to end, end spectacularly, and simply be finished when it finishes. [/font][/font]

[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have the RPG set up like this: There's a main region or place, (The Smash Complex) where all/most of the characters would relax and casually brawl each other and such. Everyso often, perhaps when activity seems to be slowing down, a plot arc will start up and send a group or even all the characters flying off on a quest, which would be 'A-B-C-Finish'. Return to home, derp around and repeat. [/font][/font]

[font="'Comic Sans MS';color:#000000;"][font="'comic sans ms', cursive;"]The other main suggestion/comment was basically whether or not to have characters from outside of just Smash, or Nintendo, or even video games. I personally think that it'd be an interesting idea, and I've already got an in-game reason for such things to happen. [/font][/font]

Oh, but we are planning an RPG. It's an RPG where every player is a debater. The goal is to keep in character for a whole month straight of debates on a single subject, the first one being "Is this image real or fake - has science gone too far?"

Your best bet would be to start off with tournament and side quests. That way you can keep people active. Those not participating in a current fight could be out on the quests or getting involved in casual brawls... or trying to kill each other, I guess.

Oh, and here's an idea - what if you make it into a Valhalla like set up? The requirement for every character - they need to have died. Preferably in a completely awesome way. The only problem I see is that it could lead to some spoilers... people midway through the Harry Potter series might be a bit shocked to learn what happens on page 596.

So if I were to bring in a character like say... Snake Plissken, who happens to be a tough guy but has no superpowers or superstrength or anything, the dimension would somehow make him stand a chance against characters who have flame attacks and other such crazy powers?

Damage Reduction 50/-

-Toa Levacius Zehvor

0

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If we're using any character we want, there might need to be an explanation for how they can seemingly fight on even terms. Maybe the dimension alters everyone's power as to be equal? I mean, it would be no fun for everyone if I destroyed the planet with Goku.

What would happen if we accidentally brought in a character without any supernatural or superhuman powers?

Well, from what I said, the dimension would equalize the power of ANY person/monster/etc., so they would have about the same resilience and strength as the combatants, as would their arsenal of weaponry.

So if I were to bring in a character like say... Snake Plissken, who happens to be a tough guy but has no superpowers or superstrength or anything, the dimension would somehow make him stand a chance against characters who have flame attacks and other such crazy powers?

That arguably already happens in the series. Solid Snake doesn't have mystical abilities or superhuman strength, yet his explosive weaponry is capable of doing the job, and he is even on mostly even terms when talking about power against other combatants. Link can also be an example, while part of his arsenal is magical, his inherent traits are not, and he has not been stated to have superhuman strength.

I'll admit, a Solid Snake vs. Snake Plissken match would be pretty awesome if it was something other than just a cheap Snake Plissken knock-off beating up a cheap Solid Snake knock-off with the only in-universe justification being a few off-hand remarks about how the Solid Snake knock-off screwed over the Snake Plissken knock-off. Yes, this actually happened, ask any of my friends from Dino Attack RPG about Snake and Plastic Serpent, and how the latter of whom was supposed to come off as a low-life scumbag yet players ended up relating more towards him than Snake, who was supposed to be likeable. I somehow got it into my head that Solid Snake was shameless rip-off of Snake Plissken and tried to show that by writing a sequence where the shameless Snake Plissken knock-off simply named "Snake" starts beating up this guy Plastic Serpent who supposedly screwed him over, resulting in a massive cafeteria brawl between the two men. At the time it seemed pretty awesome but then I had to go and have Snake beat up Plastic Serpent again when another player reintroduced him... immediately after two medics had tried to patch wounds he'd suffered in battle. I then went and wrote a (non-canon) third scene where Snake passes by Plastic Serpent on a bridge and starts bashing his head in. Then Snake Plissken and Solid Snake show up and beat up Snake, he only gets beaten up and left on the ground while Plastic Serpent gets his head bashed in and thrown over the side of the bridge. Then Snake Plissken went and started beating up Solid Snake and also bashing his head into the railing and throwing him over the side of the bridge.

A legit Snake Plissken vs. Solid Snake match, with Solid Snake being played by someone who actually knows a thing or two about the character and having just as much of an advantage as Snake Plissken would be awesome.

Yes, but as a player, the goal is still to ensure everyone has the most fun. Hence -

Heh. Nice try. Unfortunately, that situation is not as adoptable as you claim. You charge a soldier under my control with a gun, he is going to do his best to kill you. I do not pull punches, I don't coddle. You want to win against a force commanded by me, expect resistance. I know tactics, I've read up on them. I won't hold back just because someone doesn't want their character to die. You attack someone, you take someone hostage or, for my unfettered characters, interfere a bit too much, and they'll go to war.

You want to beat them, plan, prepare, be clever. I refuse to hold back in a skirmish simply because you didn't plan it out.

To stress again - the use of realism should never diminish the RPG's fun. If constant "realistic" behavior by a PC or the GM leads to problems with other characters, though, that's when the issue begins.

Their problem, not mine. You don't want your character to die, don't do something that'll get him killed. It's not my job to look out for your characters, 'specially if I'm not the GM and I won't hold back because of it. Make yourself a big enough threat to certain characters of mine, and they will do their best to take you out in a combat situation. You shoot at someone, they'll shoot back. Same thing applies here.

Not all people fight to win. People have dozens of things that motivate them, and winning no matter what is just one motivation. Just because every character you write needs to win doesn't mean every other character or person does. Frankly, creating a character whose only goal is a detriment to the RPG because it makes one characters goals more important than those of another.

We once discussed how you disliked characters who were written evil with their only goal being to cause trouble for others. The "play to win" style of roleplaying is the exact same; to accomplish your goals, others are almost guaranteed to suffer. Other motivations are far more acceptable. Perhaps the character wants to redeem themselves for some action in the past, and the quest is for atonement?

Not all characters are clever and quick, and not all are playing just to win. You shouldn't expect that they are, or take advantage of that fact.

Here's another thing I need you to clarify - your phrasing, and past displays, make the "beat them/not beat them" as clears "kill or be killed," which is again not a fun scenario. It means either total win or total loss. This is not a realistic point of view; things are never that cut and dry. Having a character willing to cut losses and allow enemies minor victories if it means having a favor or a future advantage in your hand makes a far more interesting character.

Don't tell me how to run my characters if you will.

If the RPG can't adopt to someone seriously pursuing their objective and who is willing to play dirty for it, then frankly, it wasn't that strong of an RPG in the first place and probably shouldn't have been approved. What you call a detriment, I call a challenge. If you can take out my character, by all means do so, I'll praise you for it. But don't expect certain characters of mine to hold back or fight fair. War isn't about fair. It's about an objective.

If you are implying my only goal is to win an RPG...how does one even go about that? Many characters I play have an objective and if combat is involved (it normally is) they will engage and attempt to destroy those who interfere in that objective with hostile intent. They don't hold back. I went to the effort of studying tactics, planning out ambushes, thrusts and counter thrusts. Frankly, if you aren't ready for a serious war, why did you pick a fight in the first place?

If they can't handle combat, retreat, run away, or better yet, don't fight in the first place. To use an example, Yuri, a general of the armed forces in the X-Men RPG, was charged with protecting the president during a conferance (he was killed despite his efforts by the way) and numerous players decided it'd be a good time to pick a fight with his soldiers. So they did what soldiers would do. They protected POTUS and put down many of the attackers. Yuri's objective wasn't to win, it was to protect the president. The attackers chose to pick a fight with the military. I'm not responsible for their choice.

And frankly, if you think soldiers protecting POTUS would hold back, then you and reality need to have a long talk.

....Your memory fails you Lev. I distinctly recall retreating in the Halo RPG. Which you played. I don't ask you not debate me, I do ask you do your research first.

I should note, I have no issue with retreating. If it is tactically wise. Why run when you have a good chance of winning? I shan't change my RPing style simply because you have an issue with it.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 05:43 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Frankly, in a character-driven RPG, "playing to win" is kind of an obtuse concept. Yes, characters tend to have goals that they want accomplished. Yes, characters tend to attempt to move towards accomplishing those goals. That is right, natural, and to be expected. The sort of winning you're talking about, I expect, consists more of victory from the perspective of the player instead of the character - making your character the most prominent, thrashing anything that annoys you, etc.

0

Gentlemen, fooling you once with this trick was an honor. Twice was a privilege. It's been a pleasure.

Why the heck would someone protecting the president hold back when someone is attacking the president?

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Yes, but as a player, the goal is still to ensure everyone has the most fun. Hence -

Heh. Nice try. Unfortunately, that situation is not as adoptable as you claim. You charge a soldier under my control with a gun, he is going to do his best to kill you. I do not pull punches, I don't coddle. You want to win against a force commanded by me, expect resistance. I know tactics, I've read up on them. I won't hold back just because someone doesn't want their character to die. You attack someone, you take someone hostage or, for my unfettered characters, interfere a bit too much, and they'll go to war.

You want to beat them, plan, prepare, be clever. I refuse to hold back in a skirmish simply because you didn't plan it out.

To stress again - the use of realism should never diminish the RPG's fun. If constant "realistic" behavior by a PC or the GM leads to problems with other characters, though, that's when the issue begins.

Their problem, not mine. You don't want your character to die, don't do something that'll get him killed. It's not my job to look out for your characters, 'specially if I'm not the GM and I won't hold back because of it. Make yourself a big enough threat to certain characters of mine, and they will do their best to take you out in a combat situation. You shoot at someone, they'll shoot back. Same thing applies here.

Not all people fight to win. People have dozens of things that motivate them, and winning no matter what is just one motivation. Just because every character you write needs to win doesn't mean every other character or person does. Frankly, creating a character whose only goal is a detriment to the RPG because it makes one characters goals more important than those of another.

We once discussed how you disliked characters who were written evil with their only goal being to cause trouble for others. The "play to win" style of roleplaying is the exact same; to accomplish your goals, others are almost guaranteed to suffer. Other motivations are far more acceptable. Perhaps the character wants to redeem themselves for some action in the past, and the quest is for atonement?

Not all characters are clever and quick, and not all are playing just to win. You shouldn't expect that they are, or take advantage of that fact.

Here's another thing I need you to clarify - your phrasing, and past displays, make the "beat them/not beat them" as clears "kill or be killed," which is again not a fun scenario. It means either total win or total loss. This is not a realistic point of view; things are never that cut and dry. Having a character willing to cut losses and allow enemies minor victories if it means having a favor or a future advantage in your hand makes a far more interesting character.

Don't tell me how to run my characters if you will.

If the RPG can't adopt to someone seriously pursuing their objective and willing to play dirty for it, then frankly, it wasn't that strong of an RPG in the first place and probably shouldn't have been approved. What you call a detriment, I call a challenge. If you can take out my character, by all means do so, I'll praise you for it. But don't expect certain characters of mine to hold back or fight fair. War isn't about fair. It's about an objective.

If you are implying my only goal is to win an RPG...who does one even go about that? Many characters I play have an objective and if combat is involved (it normally is) they will engage and attempt to destroy those who interfere in that objective with hostile intent. They don't hold back. I went to the effort of studying tactics, planning out ambushes, thrusts and counter thrusts. Frankly, if you aren't ready for a serious war, why did you pick a fight in the first place?

If they can't handle combat, retreat, run away, or better yet, don't fight in the first place. To use an example, Yuri, a general of the armed forces in the X-Men RPG, was charged with protecting the president during a conferance (he was killed despite his efforts by the way) and numerous players decided it'd be a good time to pick a fight with his soldiers. So they did what soldiers would do. They protected POTUS and put down many of the attackers. Yuri's objective wasn't to win, it was to protect the president. The attackers chose to pick a fight with the military. I'm not responsible for their choice.

And frankly, if you think soldiers protecting POTUS would hold back, then you and reality need to have a long talk.

....Your memory fails you Lev. I distinctly recall retreating in the Halo RPG. Which you played. I don't ask you not debate me, I do ask you do your research first.

I should note, I have no issue with retreating. If it is tactically wise. Why run when you have a good chance of winning? I shan't change my RPing style simply because you have an issue with it.

Of course, you're going mainly on the assumption that it's a war-based military RPG. A lot of RPGs will involve combat but not all of them involve a war, or at least won't put you in command of an entire army. For instance, out of my two characters in Multiveral Collision, only one actually has any sort over a group of soldiers, and even then it's primarily in medical matters and she still has to answer to higher officers, the other is a civilian who has no army, weapons, or any particular desire to cause harm to others.

Even if you aren't a soldier or a military commander, a character in a bad situation is unlikely to hold back. A doctor in the wilderness, treating critically-injured patients, will do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival. Someone lost in the jungle will do whatever is necessary to get out alive. Someone whose best friend is trapped in a burning building might well take extreme measures to help them.

0

Gentlemen, fooling you once with this trick was an honor. Twice was a privilege. It's been a pleasure.

Heh. Nice try. Unfortunately, that situation is not as adoptable as you claim. You charge a soldier under my control with a gun, he is going to do his best to kill you. I do not pull punches, I don't coddle. You want to win against a force commanded by me, expect resistance. I know tactics, I've read up on them. I won't hold back just because someone doesn't want their character to die. You attack someone, you take someone hostage or, for my unfettered characters, interfere a bit too much, and they'll go to war.

You want to beat them, plan, prepare, be clever. I refuse to hold back in a skirmish simply because you didn't plan it out.

Holding back is one thing. Coddling is one thing. Outright making your goal to kill their characters because they got in the way is not. Think about every possible option and choose the one that benefits your character and fits their established personality, but allows the game to continue. If someone forces themselves into a situation where you have only one choice (charging you while you have a disintegration ray) then you shouldn't just give in.

But in the scenario I gave, you had two options that benefit you just as much. The difference being, one kills off a bunch of PCs, the other gives you the option to use it more tactically later. On a similar vein, imagine a situation where you have two bases of equal power; one is manned with PC support, another has high ranking NPCs. You can destroy one of them. Both are filled with enemies. Your target, unless the enemy PCs do something like launch an attack that makes that base the more dangerous one, should be the NPC one.

Don't tell me how to run my characters if you will.

If the RPG can't adopt to someone seriously pursuing their objective and who is willing to play dirty for it, then frankly, it wasn't that strong of an RPG in the first place and probably shouldn't have been approved. What you call a detriment, I call a challenge. If you can take out my character, by all means do so, I'll praise you for it. But don't expect certain characters of mine to hold back or fight fair. War isn't about fair. It's about an objective.

If you are implying my only goal is to win an RPG...how does one even go about that? Many characters I play have an objective and if combat is involved (it normally is) they will engage and attempt to destroy those who interfere in that objective with hostile intent. They don't hold back. I went to the effort of studying tactics, planning out ambushes, thrusts and counter thrusts. Frankly, if you aren't ready for a serious war, why did you pick a fight in the first place?

If they can't handle combat, retreat, run away, or better yet, don't fight in the first place. To use an example, Yuri, a general of the armed forces in the X-Men RPG, was charged with protecting the president during a conferance (he was killed despite his efforts by the way) and numerous players decided it'd be a good time to pick a fight with his soldiers. So they did what soldiers would do. They protected POTUS and put down many of the attackers. Yuri's objective wasn't to win, it was to protect the president. The attackers chose to pick a fight with the military. I'm not responsible for their choice.

And frankly, if you think soldiers protecting POTUS would hold back, then you and reality need to have a long talk.

....Your memory fails you Lev. I distinctly recall retreating in the Halo RPG. Which you played. I don't ask you not debate me, I do ask you do your research first.

I should note, I have no issue with retreating. If it is tactically wise. Why run when you have a good chance of winning? I shan't change my RPing style simply because you have an issue with it.

My memory does not fail me, as I do recall said retreat. However, I was not referring to your actual actions, I was referring to the way you phrased it as part of this discussion. What happened in the past matters less than what is brought to this debate.

It's not a war, Basilisk. It's an RPG. G. Game. It's a game. Where roles are played.

I was not attempting to imply it, I was inferring it based on your statement that every one of your characters was "in it to win no matter what," which by itself and without any actual motivation related to the character, is a rather bland motivation. Most people have things that motivate them, along with different quirks and things that can be exploited. Or a moral code that guides them, like not murdering innocents who get in the way, or being unable to kill someone once they surrender.

The situation with the president brings up an issue called common sense. The number of troops under one US general's command could devastate most countries. Attacking them while they're in a position of defense... that's the point your character deserves to die, plain and simple. However, if their character actions had already shown them the type willing to risk a mission like that, kudos to them for following it through to the bitter end.

I do wish we could actually get an RPG with us on opposing sides, and keep it open long enough to bring a conflict to its bitter end. The playing of wits would be quite enjoyable; the rational against the more... unorthodox.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor

0

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Holding back is one thing. Coddling is one thing. Outright making your goal to kill their characters because they got in the way is not. Think about every possible option and choose the one that benefits your character and fits their established personality, but allows the game to continue. If someone forces themselves into a situation where you have only one choice (charging you while you have a disintegration ray) then you shouldn't just give in.

But in the scenario I gave, you had two options that benefit you just as much. The difference being, one kills off a bunch of PCs, the other gives you the option to use it more tactically later. On a similar vein, imagine a situation where you have two bases of equal power; one is manned with PC support, another has high ranking NPCs. You can destroy one of them. Both are filled with enemies. Your target, unless the enemy PCs do something like launch an attack that makes that base the more dangerous one, should be the NPC one.

The type of characters I enjoy playing, dons, SpecOps, pragmatic planners....don't take kindly to someone breaking into their base, throwing wrenches into their plans or, in more then one case, threatening humanity. They'll use lethal force if it is needed. Don't care if it's dramatic, if you care about the character, or any of that. What they see is someone killing their men, threatening their goals and the like. If they have the clout and the wealth...or the skills, to arrange an accident. They won't shy away from it. I won't allow OOC feelings to effect IC dealings in this case. You don't want your life to be threatened, don't get involved with the ruthless black ops cell and have escape routes if they come a-calling. I refuse, however, to pull punches because you care about the character.

They didn't care about their well-being that much if they picked a fight with an organization like that. That's a pretty standard part of going into combat. Accepting there is a chance, a pretty good one, you'll end up dead. Except if you are using drones.

Yig, I love drones. The best kind of fight is the kind where your enemy doesn't even get the chance to shoot back.

As for the bases, I'd flip a coin. Or better yet, launch an attack on the other whilst firing off the nuke at one of them. Confusion from the sudden loss of communication plus the lack of support will make the job easier for the ground-pounders.

My memory does not fail me, as I do recall said retreat. However, I was not referring to your actual actions, I was referring to the way you phrased it as part of this discussion. What happened in the past matters less than what is brought to this debate.

Uh-huh.

It's not a war, Basilisk. It's an RPG. G. Game. It's a game. Where roles are played.

And my roles happen to be ruthless and rather good planners. Also, I do believe wars and other violent situations have happened in RPGs. Just because it's a game, doesn't mean you don't have to put effort into it. I'm not going to play softball because you don't want your character to die. My characters have a goal, many of them are willing to take certain actions to reach said goal. You want a soft and easy life, or to not be at risk of getting shot, don't get in the way of that goal.

I was not attempting to imply it, I was inferring it based on your statement that every one of your characters was "in it to win no matter what," which by itself and without any actual motivation related to the character, is a rather bland motivation. Most people have things that motivate them, along with different quirks and things that can be exploited. Or a moral code that guides them, like not murdering innocents who get in the way, or being unable to kill someone once they surrender.

You don't know much about Spec war do you? Aside from that, some of my characters do, for the most part, try to keep innocent civilians out of it. For pragmatic and moral reasons. I play cunning planners, skilled generals, the vizier, the PMC director. I'm not going to water down my characters....and it's not that they'll always do anything to win. None of them have ever unleashed a virus on an entire city. But I do know, at least, the basics of combat. How guns work, what frags will do to people in an enclosed room. These are tried and true combat methods because they work. Alot. Not gonna treat PC's special. You want to beat a force with one of my characters behind the wheel, you'll need to outplan, outmanuver and outhink someone who quite sincerely wants the people attacking them dead and will go to lengths to ensure it.

If you lose, it's not my fault your tactics aren't the best. Not gonna tie a hand behind the back of my character just so someone's favorite gets off scott free.

I do wish we could actually get an RPG with us on opposing sides, and keep it open long enough to bring a conflict to its bitter end. The playing of wits would be quite enjoyable; the rational against the more... unorthodox.

There's an XMDD sequel coming up. Along with an RTS-RPG.

Needless to say, I already have ten or twelve different plans for both of them.

Edited by Basilisk, Aug 12 2013 - 09:55 PM.

0

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Okay, so... While this is off topic, and I apologize, I've worked on a pitch for a fantasy type thing.(I tried out the Legend of Rainville deal somewhere. Didn't work)(Also, I do get the joke of having a fantasy deal after the argument above) The land of Rowane was new. Newer than the dew which falls on the fairy circles, its magic fresh and active, not like the magic of today. No, our tales come from the days when myth ran high and normality was not normal. When trolls and dragons walked the land, when princesses slept and little girls ran through the woods to their grandmother's house, fearful a wolf would get them. Aye, this is a land of legend and superstition.So, in OOC terms what will be going on is this:Rowane is a land roughly Ireland's size and shape, with all the green fields that come with it.Magic is prevalent here. The sorcerer's apprentice could take place in this world.And that's just it: This is -the- world of fairy tales. When creating your character, you're highly encouraged to pick a popular tale (like Red Riding Hood) and twist it in some way. Instead of writing a bio, you write -your character's- version of the story. A version where Red was raised by wolves and had her pack killed by an evil relative? Entirely possible.Comments are appreciated XD